When
same-sex marriage advocates make their claim on the basis of equality or human
rights, they do not acknowledge that their rights-based argument, if accepted,
should apply to all sexual orientations.Moreover, what they are really asking is that the state ends its heterosexist
worldview and adopts a homosexist worldview.Rabbi Reuven Bulka remarks on the strategy:

Nobody wants to look like they’re denying anyone else equal rights
– that’s the mantra of today equal rights.Still with regards to the definition of marriage, this is not an issue
of equality, but a claim to sameness; and it’s not the same...If everything is
marriage then nothing is marriage.[i]

Gay
rights lawyer, Didi Herman, wrote in 1990, “Law
reform is part of an ideological battle, and fighting over the meanings of
marriage and family constitutes resistance to heterosexual hegemony.”[ii]In 1997, EGALE ratified a Guiding Principle that “Lesbians, gays, and bisexuals should have
access to the same range of relationship options as heterosexuals.”[iii]Paula Ettelbrick, legal director of
Lambda, says, “I don’t know that any of
us are ready to push for more than two people getting married,” yet she
fears if only gays and lesbians are given the right to marry, others (bisexuals
and group-sexuals) who can not marry will be “outlaws among outlaws.”[iv]

Marriage
redefinition signifies the state is now “indifferent” in its governance of homosexuals
and heterosexuals.In effect the state has
abandoned heterosexism - the “privileged” protection of husband, wife, father,
mother and child with the associated policy of “tolerance” towards homosexuals
and, in its place, has fully adopted homosexism - requiring the “privileged advocacy”
by the state of the virtues and equivalency of same-sex sexual relations,
unions and family variations.Same-sex
marriage has never been about “protective” human rights legislation.First of all, some 97 percent of homosexuals
will never chose to marry.Secondly, as
Paula Ettelbrick points out above, many homosexuals fear opening the door to
same-sex marriage will bring about a new source for so-called “moral oppression”
– a hierarchy of relationships.Thirdly,
according to BC Supreme Court Judge Ian H. Pitfield, homosexual couples already have all the freedoms of
expression or association, as well as mobility rights and rights of liberty and
security, without the right of marriage.[v]Same-sex marriage is really about affirming homosexuality as a lifestyle choice and
about forcing the rest of society to come around to this homosexist
consensus.Marriage redefinition goes
well beyond protective “resistance to heterosexual hegemony.” Same-sex
marriage heralds the intent of the state (lead by the judicial system) to enforce
censorship upon any opposition to the homosexual claim to “sameness” in
governance and in societal association at large.

In 2001, Cindy Silver, legal
co-counsel for the B.C. Coalition for Marriage and Family, after defeating
the McCloskey/Short (homosexual) marriage challenge in the B.C. Supreme Court, said:

This judgment
means that people who believe in marriage in its traditional sense will be able
to continue to believe in that and to instruct their children accordingly, and
to anticipate that public education will be mindful of that view. It preserves the rights of people to believe
those things without fear of hindrance or reprisal.

She added:

There's no
doubt that this case was an attempt to force society's approval of homosexual
relationships as being morally and socially equal to opposite-sex married
couples.[vi]

Four years later it was the homosexist
worldview which prevailed. And all that
was affirmative in Cindy Silver’s 2001 synopsis is now in the negative.

Some
might rush to applaud a policy of indifference held by the state, arguing that
government has no place legislating morality - the corollary of separation of
church and state.But then who
will?Not the religious.They, like vocal heterosexists, will be
silenced from public voice.The tragic paradox
in adopting a homosexist worldview is that the state will not back away from
morality, but rather will take on a major role in legislating homosexist values,
particularly focusing on influencing the next generation.

Iain
T. Benson in “The Idolatry of Law: When Law is Seen as ‘Like Religion’,” warns
Canadians to beware of a totalitarian “jurocracy,”
where judges deem themselves capable of replacing morals, philosophy, or
religion and making their own wills the measure of right and wrong.In a jurocracy (as in a theocracy) an elitist
party usurps their proper role in a democracy.Benson writes:

This new legal movement uses the language of ‘equality’ and
‘dignity’ (the first of which is in the constitution itself) to effect ends
that are well beyond the usual judicial role.In this new juggernaut of forced consensus, what is really at issue is
the power of judges to force their own personal moral and theological beliefs
upon society.Under the guise of ‘legal
interpretation,’ the ‘new theologians,’ believing law is comprehensive,
promulgate the dogmatic rules of the day.[vii]

And
in the same-sex marriage era, the new state morality will no longer be rooted
in religious values, but in secular-humanist principles.The homosexist worldview will underpin future
governance in custody, parenting, adultery, reproduction, biogenetics, death
and countless other societal areas.In their
own words, Ontario Chief Justice Roy McMurtry says the court’s role is to “forge a new social concensus,”[viii]and Justice of the Supreme Court, Rosalie
Abella, says the judiciaries are pushing “the
juggernaut of rights.”[ix]

The tragedy in this Canadian same-sex
marriage decision is that the state has not admitted to the public that the
decision to redefine marriage inclusive of gays and lesbians signifies the
state itself has adopted the homosexist worldview.

The Nation, a journal for mostly gay
readers, recorded on May 3, 1993:

All
the crosscurrents of present-day liberation struggles are subsumed in the gay
struggle. The gay movement is in some ways similar to the movement that other
communities have experienced in the nation’s past, but it is also something
more, because sexual identity is in crisis throughout the population, and gay
people – at once the most conspicuous subjects and objects of the crisis – have
been forced to invent a complete cosmology to grasp it.No one says the changes will come
easily.But it’s just possible that a
small and despised sexual minority will change America forever.[x]

This
prediction has come true and the invented cosmology may be labeled “Homosexism.”Heterosexism and homosexism
cannot be integrated; the dynamic between them is zero-sum - the gains of one
are at the cost of the other.Legislation,
such as same-sex marriage, attempts to treat the distinct worldviews with
indifference and to unite the “social spaces” they under gird, but in reality
the state can only hold to one worldview at a time.

The bane of
secular humanism is religion and in Canada the secular humanist target is
Christianity.To the secular humanist
ideologue the faithfully religious must be publicly silenced and politically
neutered, if not de-programmed.Dostoevsky’s dictum: “If there is
no God, everything is permitted,” is the key to achieving secular humanist
utopia.Secular humanist support for
same-sex marriage, and homosexual liberation in general, draws tremendous
momentum from the undermining and constraining impact homosexism has upon world
religions.Moreover, same-sex marriage will also
undermine resistance to human genetic engineering, use of artificial wombs and
human cloning - all of which are elements of the humanist dream for utopia.

The
International Academy of Humanists proclaims:

The potential benefits of cloning may be so immense that it would
be a tragedy if ancient theological scruples should lead to a Luddite rejection
of cloning.[xi]

And
Mona Greenbaum, of the Lesbian Mothers Association of Quebec, claims that
lesbians should have the same access to fertility technology that married
heterosexual women have.And Brigitte
Boisselier, director of CLONAID, alleges that there is already demand for
cloning among gay couples.Bentley
Glass, then president of the American Association for the Advancement of
Science, declares:

No
parents in the future time will have a right to burden society with a malformed
or a mentally incompetent child…Just as every child must have the right to full
educational opportunity and a sound nutrition, so every child has the
inalienable right to sound heritage.[xii]

In
this anything goes secular humanist worldview, Glass predicts parents will
abort genetically imperfect fetuses or use gene therapy to alter their unborn
children.Moreover, inert (homosexual)
couples will harness the power of technology to overcome biological procreative
design shortcomings.

The
heterosexual system of marriage and family is the chief obstacle to this
secular humanist technocratic future.If
traditional marriage endures, the realm of the state and the development and
use of the technology can be limited.George Gilder put the issues as follows:

If
the family should widely breakdown, then the world of artificial wombs, clones,
and child-development centers would become an important reality rather than a
laboratory curiosity.[xiii]

Marriage
and family cannot prosper in a homosexist state.And public Christian witness faces
unprecedented obstacles in a homosexist nation.

[vi] Frank
Stirk, “Marriage Upheld by B.C. Judge,” Christian
Week, Vol. 15, Issue 13, October
16, 2001. Cindy Silver also represented REAL Women of B.C., the
Canadian Alliance of Social Justice and Family Values Associations and Focus on
the Family Canada.